Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-04-2012, 10:32 AM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(28-04-2012 10:24 AM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote: They still feel suffering and pain, and they have a life that was given to them just as equally as ours was to us.
Again, you have set the standard (without justification) that a steer's life is equal to a human's life. That is your opinion.
Not giving my opinion one way or another here, just going to say that a number of atheist vegan(and all the variants/combinations) I know use the "animals life not equal to a human's" as an example of how religion's influence still exists (god gave animals for humans to eat). And that when people (generally) look out in a field with animals, they see animals more than "look at that food roaming about" whereas seeing a orchard/plant-based-farm/etc makes them think "look at all those trees/plants, and yummy food".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2012, 10:45 AM (This post was last modified: 28-04-2012 10:49 AM by NotSoVacuous.)
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
Quote:And it does not make it not okay to eat them. You make a statement without justification, you have not debunked nature, merely put your interpretation and perception on it.
Actually I have, multiple times. Go back in read. Also, I will add, it isn't exactly my burden to justify not doing something. It is the doer's burden. You have been lucky enough to get something out of me.
Quote:Again, you have set the standard (without justification) that a steer's life is equal to a human's life. That is your opinion.
I didn't say their life was as equal. I said it was GIVEN equally. I know, that word was kind of hidden in my text. Apparently so were the words "
steer's life is equal to a human's life" because I can't seem to find where I said that.
Quote:Saying something is a fact doesn't make it a fact.
This was about animal suffer, and how I stated it was a fact that they do. Also in regards of how their life was given to them just as equally as ours was, by evolution. You know what. We are going to have fun with this one. Watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIB7owP9F...re=related

Now it is your turn to tell me how that isn't suffering. How that isn't pain. Because that is about as factual as I can make it. I will be waiting for this one. It should be entertaining.

Oh, I get it now, it wasn't a fact that they are suffering after all. Those are screams of joy! Those attempts at running away and kicking isn't in fear, that's in anticipation! You know why? He gets to go to McDonalds! I've got it. It's a fresh new saying. "I am as gleeful and as excited as a pig at a slaughterhouse!" Trust me and Chas guys, it will catch on!

"We Humans are capable of greatness." -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2012, 10:59 AM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
I've got a few things to say on this whole topic.

I feel, like most here, that eating meat is natural. I think that is a good reason to eat meat.

NSVs approach is abrasive.

NSV tends to group everyone into a lump category, and then say we are all wrong.

BUT, NSV has made some really good arguments, and many have not been addressed. I think too many people are taking NSVs style of debate as offensive, which puts everyone on the defensive. But really, NSV is just looking for some good hard reasoning as to WHY the opposite side of the debate is using nature as a justification for eating meat. Honestly, I am having trouble coming up wit h an explanation, and I haven't seen it explained well by others either. I do get it, and I do agree, but I also get why NSV is frustrated, since his perspective is different. I think at this point in the discussion, he has stopped being viewed as the other side of the debate, and started being viewed as "the enemy."

Sure, I don't like comments that say, "you are all wrong" either, but going back and reading the whole thread, I really see a lot of what NSV is saying as valid points. I can, in the very least, understand his frustration, if not his approach. Just sayin.

NSV, I wish I was better at this, so I could help you understand my take on the topic, but I just suck at it. The thread is long, and has gotten pretty muddled, but if you're willing, I'd really like to see a simplified, point form kinda thing, that illustrates your points and objections. It would make it easier for me to wrap my head around, and understand a little better. I know it,s a tall order, and I'm cool if you don't want to go there. It's just that when I went back and re-read the whole thread (which I did) I can see some of your perspective more clearly, but it's still hard to sort out in my head.

Just sayin'

P.S. not sure of your gender, so if I got it wrong, sorry.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stark Raving's post
28-04-2012, 12:50 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
He is not just abrasive, he is downright intentionally condescending and genuinely rude. This is not a matter of us not understanding him. This is a matter of him having an iron fisted opinion. He claims that the nature argument is fallacious and he presented why. I in turn think his reasoning is what's fallacious.

He used a faulty analogy of human intellect by talking about how we have unnatural things like clothes and technology.

I quite thoroughly rebutted that one.

He brushes me off as unintelligent from what I can only assume is my use of profanity. Quite hypocritical seeing as how he arrogantly labels all of us as ignorant and wrong.

You choose to ignore me because you have no response other than childish insults and condescending remarks.

Vegans go against humans' primal need to nourish themselves by consciously choosing not to consume meat. That primal need is "justification" enough to consume meat. It is the vegan that owes justification for making a conscious choice to ignore this primal need.

This is exactly what I mean by "meat nun". Nun's resist the need for sex. Their justification is religion. So what reason does a vegan have for the choice they make?

What does a vegan have to say about consuming plants which are living organisms?
This thread in a nutshell:

"Is walking on all fours the moral baseline?"

Four Legan: Yes because we are the only species that walks upright and that is arrogant because we have enough intelligence to realize this. People who walk upright must provide justification for continuing to walk upright when they have the intelligence to realize that we are all animals.

Upright Apean: Fuck you. I'm walking upright to support my skull that has evolved to be big in order to house a big brain. It's the natural thing to do. You can walk on all fours if you want, but that's YOUR CHOICE.

Four Legan: You're an ignorant child. You are all wrong because I know for a fact that your premise for walking upright is highly fallacious.
By the way, no vegan or vegetarian addressed this point that I brought up:

You are vegan/vegetarian because you have the luxury to be so. So how could it possibly be the baseline for morality? People without the luxury to obtain important nutrients via vitamins and foods like soy beans are then not justified when they eat meat like fish?

Hopefully you realize the importance of the "nature" argument now.

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like NoahsFarce's post
28-04-2012, 01:49 PM (This post was last modified: 28-04-2012 01:54 PM by NotSoVacuous.)
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(28-04-2012 10:59 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  I've got a few things to say on this whole topic.

I feel, like most here, that eating meat is natural. I think that is a good reason to eat meat.

NSVs approach is abrasive.

NSV tends to group everyone into a lump category, and then say we are all wrong.

BUT, NSV has made some really good arguments, and many have not been addressed. I think too many people are taking NSVs style of debate as offensive, which puts everyone on the defensive. But really, NSV is just looking for some good hard reasoning as to WHY the opposite side of the debate is using nature as a justification for eating meat. Honestly, I am having trouble coming up wit h an explanation, and I haven't seen it explained well by others either. I do get it, and I do agree, but I also get why NSV is frustrated, since his perspective is different. I think at this point in the discussion, he has stopped being viewed as the other side of the debate, and started being viewed as "the enemy."

Sure, I don't like comments that say, "you are all wrong" either, but going back and reading the whole thread, I really see a lot of what NSV is saying as valid points. I can, in the very least, understand his frustration, if not his approach. Just sayin.

NSV, I wish I was better at this, so I could help you understand my take on the topic, but I just suck at it. The thread is long, and has gotten pretty muddled, but if you're willing, I'd really like to see a simplified, point form kinda thing, that illustrates your points and objections. It would make it easier for me to wrap my head around, and understand a little better. I know it,s a tall order, and I'm cool if you don't want to go there. It's just that when I went back and re-read the whole thread (which I did) I can see some of your perspective more clearly, but it's still hard to sort out in my head.

Just sayin'

P.S. not sure of your gender, so if I got it wrong, sorry.
My talks probably do appear abrasive, but the abrasion is only related to the dodging of my points. It is also related to the continuation of using appeals to nature. I have laid the case out over and over again that this is not a valid justification, and it is only used in a biased manner for self interest. I have yet had anyone argue that this is not the case. They pick and choose where they want to apply the justification of nature in their life; I contend it does not work this way, not in a right and wrong ethical standpoint.

I will try to give a more simplified version of my argument:

We are animals. We, like all other animals, were in a "eat or be eaten" world. We have recently surpassed this stage with our superior intellect. We are now capable of understanding why we are here, and we are able to manipulate the very thing that "created" us--evolution. We are no longer restricted to the rules of nature except for disease and--hopefully not for long--death. We can create our own options for how our days/lives will go. We have abstract thinking that corrects injustices that otherwise would just be viewed as natural; eating meat is one of these injustices--among others.

If we were to look at the lion eating the gazelle and as why does it hunt the gazelle. We could answer with, because it is natural. There is no other justification for it. The lion cannot think abstractly. It cannot reason. Thus, it is confined to the natural order; we, however, are not. We now require better justification for anything we do in life. We do not shit in the lawn. Although being natural, we demand better justification. The same applies to laws that prohibit having sex with children. The same goes with not being a sexist. The same goes with brushing our teeth and taking medicine, and the same goes with wearing clothes. The list goes on. Everything in our lives demand a higher justification. We think, we debate, we change. It is a process; a process many are refusing to adhere to. (Reference post #116 for a more detailed argument against nature/perception.)

Now I am not claiming the refraining from eating meat is right. I am demonstrating that no one here has a better reason against it other than trivial self interest. If no one can defend it, then fine. Admit that. But when I repeatably demonstrate the holes that are in appeals to nature. And when I explain that perception has no bearing on what is right and what is wrong, I am demonstrating that the injustice is still there whether it is acknowledged or not. The same goes for the tree falling in the woods. Just because someone is not present, does not mean that there is not a sound. Just because someone does not perceive the suffering of the animal, does not mean that it does not suffer.

Valid justification is all that is demanded. I am not looking for the first fallacious argument that helps everyone sleep at night. Animals can suffer. There is no doubt about this. We can acknowledge this and circumvent it. Why should we do this? So we do not cause unneeded suffering. It is as simple as that.

"We Humans are capable of greatness." -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2012, 02:27 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
I actually think I understand what you're saying a lot better.

I'm gonna think on that for a while.




........and thanks. Nothing I appreciate more than when someone makes me think. whether I agree in the end or not, it's all about thinking. That's how we grow.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2012, 02:36 PM (This post was last modified: 28-04-2012 02:43 PM by nach_in.)
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(28-04-2012 01:49 PM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  
(28-04-2012 10:59 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  I've got a few things to say on this whole topic.

I feel, like most here, that eating meat is natural. I think that is a good reason to eat meat.

NSVs approach is abrasive.

NSV tends to group everyone into a lump category, and then say we are all wrong.

BUT, NSV has made some really good arguments, and many have not been addressed. I think too many people are taking NSVs style of debate as offensive, which puts everyone on the defensive. But really, NSV is just looking for some good hard reasoning as to WHY the opposite side of the debate is using nature as a justification for eating meat. Honestly, I am having trouble coming up wit h an explanation, and I haven't seen it explained well by others either. I do get it, and I do agree, but I also get why NSV is frustrated, since his perspective is different. I think at this point in the discussion, he has stopped being viewed as the other side of the debate, and started being viewed as "the enemy."

Sure, I don't like comments that say, "you are all wrong" either, but going back and reading the whole thread, I really see a lot of what NSV is saying as valid points. I can, in the very least, understand his frustration, if not his approach. Just sayin.

NSV, I wish I was better at this, so I could help you understand my take on the topic, but I just suck at it. The thread is long, and has gotten pretty muddled, but if you're willing, I'd really like to see a simplified, point form kinda thing, that illustrates your points and objections. It would make it easier for me to wrap my head around, and understand a little better. I know it,s a tall order, and I'm cool if you don't want to go there. It's just that when I went back and re-read the whole thread (which I did) I can see some of your perspective more clearly, but it's still hard to sort out in my head.

Just sayin'

P.S. not sure of your gender, so if I got it wrong, sorry.
My talks probably do appear abrasive, but the abrasion is only related to the dodging of my points. It is also related to the continuation of using appeals to nature. I have laid the case out over and over again that this is not a valid justification, and it is only used in a biased manner for self interest. I have yet had anyone argue that this is not the case. They pick and choose where they want to apply the justification of nature in their life; I contend it does not work this way, not in a right and wrong ethical standpoint.

I will try to give a more simplified version of my argument:

We are animals. We, like all other animals, were in a "eat or be eaten" world. We have recently surpassed this stage with our superior intellect. We are now capable of understanding why we are here, and we are able to manipulate the very thing that "created" us--evolution. We are no longer restricted to the rules of nature except for disease and--hopefully not for long--death. We can create our own options for how our days/lives will go. We have abstract thinking that corrects injustices that otherwise would just be viewed as natural; eating meat is one of these injustices--among others.

If we were to look at the lion eating the gazelle and as why does it hunt the gazelle. We could answer with, because it is natural. There is no other justification for it. The lion cannot think abstractly. It cannot reason. Thus, it is confined to the natural order; we, however, are not. We now require better justification for anything we do in life. We do not shit in the lawn. Although being natural, we demand better justification. The same applies to laws that prohibit having sex with children. The same goes with not being a sexist. The same goes with brushing our teeth and taking medicine, and the same goes with wearing clothes. The list goes on. Everything in our lives demand a higher justification. We think, we debate, we change. It is a process; a process many are refusing to adhere to. (Reference post #116 for a more detailed argument against nature/perception.)

Now I am not claiming the refraining from eating meat is right. I am demonstrating that no one here has a better reason against it other than trivial self interest. If no one can defend it, then fine. Admit that. But when I repeatably demonstrate the holes that are in appeals to nature. And when I explain that perception has no bearing on what is right and what is wrong, I am demonstrating that the injustice is still there whether it is acknowledged or not. The same goes for the tree falling in the woods. Just because someone is not present, does not mean that there is not a sound. Just because someone does not perceive the suffering of the animal, does not mean that it does not suffer.

Valid justification is all that is demanded. I am not looking for the first fallacious argument that helps everyone sleep at night. Animals can suffer. There is no doubt about this. We can acknowledge this and circumvent it. Why should we do this? So we do not cause unneeded suffering. It is as simple as that.
You don't say that refraining from eating meat is right, and you say that not causing suffering to animals is, somehow you conclude that refraining from eating meat (vegetarianism) is right.
Let me fix that for you:
Suffering to animals is bad and we should try to avoid it, how? by the same means that informs us that suffering is bad, our intelligence, hence, we should make artificial meat, but we can't right now, so we are tied by our own limitations, in the same way we are limited by nature in every aspect we can't control it (disease, death, etc.) so we're not better than wild animals when it comes to eating meat, as we don't have any way (yet) to use an artificial method to avoid it.
So there are two choices, we either stop eating meat or we find a way to produce meat without suffering. The first is vegetarianism, the second is what some scientist are trying to develop.
But this position is from deontology, as it states that ALL suffering is bad, but as in any deontologist theory, an act is only immoral if we violate the rule directly (in this case it would be "don't cause suffering") by eating meat we are not causing suffering directly, hence is not immoral to do it. We could elaborate on this one, but every objection to deontology would be valid so we would be in problems.
On the other hand, if you want to view this from a consequentialist point of view (we are judged by the consequences of our acts) we should ask how does eating meat affects our basic value (pleasure, profit, whatever you want, there are many theories) compared to not eating meat. If your value is human pleasure, then not eating meat would be morally wrong, if it's profit we should see if stopping every meat production industry is beneficial for the economy (I would say it's bad) and so on. From your posts I'm guessing that the value you hold higher is the reduction of any kind of suffering, how not eating meat causes less suffering than eating meat is not clear (I'm not saying it isn't so, just that the balance between the two alternatives is unclear), if we assume not eating meat (actually not killing animals for food) causes less suffering then yes, we should stop doing it, but we also must try to find alternative ways of producing meat because not doing it would be also morally wrong, as not eating meat causes suffering too.

In any case, saying that eating meat is bad is wrong, saying that killing animals for food could be considered bad, but that doesn't imply vegetarianism (understood as refraining from eating meat) is morally good. So to answer your original question: NO, vegetarianism is not at the moral baseline.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2012, 04:20 PM (This post was last modified: 28-04-2012 04:26 PM by Chas.)
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(28-04-2012 10:16 AM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  This isn't about me telling anyone what they can or cannot do. I merely asked what is their justification for retracting an animals well being. It is up to the doer to defend his actions. It is not up to the bystander to defend not doing them. Just as it is up to the claim maker to defend their claim because they wear the burden of proof--in this case justification. If the doer's justification is resting on self interest alone, then I argue that well being trumps this. In which at this point, I think that the doer will have a difficult time proving that selfishness is more of a virtuous or intrinsic value.
Your requiring a justification for the argument from nature is backwards. You are the "doer", the one making the claim.
We evolved as omnivores and you are saying that we should change that.
Quote: As far as the appeal to nature goes--if this isn't a matter of self interest--then tell me, who is to say that the pedophile is wrong? What if the child is willing? We must not forget, he is appealing to nature. The child is biologically "ready". I would have a hard time understanding that you wouldn't place yourself in a higher position of ethics when it came to the pedophile. That you would argue that your argument wouldn't be placed in favor of the child's well being. That you wouldn't throw the appeals to nature out of the window as fast as I do with you and your identical appeals to nature.
The pedophile argument is specious. This isn't natural; the child is not biologically ready.


(28-04-2012 01:49 PM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  Now I am not claiming the refraining from eating meat is right. I am demonstrating that no one here has a better reason against it other than trivial self interest.
Self interest is not trivial.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2012, 04:49 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
NSV still has not answered my question. Is nature immoral? I know that the nature argument is "over", but I still want that question answered.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2012, 05:57 PM (This post was last modified: 28-04-2012 06:04 PM by NotSoVacuous.)
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(28-04-2012 04:49 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  NSV still has not answered my question. Is nature immoral? I know that the nature argument is "over", but I still want that question answered.
Yes, nature in my eyes is very immoral. Millions and millions of years it has been nothing but constant struggle, fear, and pain.
(28-04-2012 04:20 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your requiring a justification for the argument from nature is backwards. You are the "doer", the one making the claim.
We evolved as omnivores and you are saying that we should change that.
You might be correct on this. Nevertheless, I have offered arguments for why I suggest we need to change.

Quote:The pedophile argument is specious. This isn't natural; the child is not biologically ready.
A child at the age of 10-11 fully capable of a sex drive and the ability to reproduce isn't natural? Please explain.
Quote:Self interest is not trivial.
It is when the self interest I am referring to is merely a preference of what someone's dinner tastes like at the expense of unimaginable suffering.


BTW, how about acknowledging the fact that animals feel pain. I linked you a video, and I would like to hear you correct your statement or tell me your view of what the pig might actually be feeling at that point. Post #122.

"We Humans are capable of greatness." -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: